Recently, I finally succumbed and bought me a box of Hunter Orcs (60% clearance, can't say no to that). This started a loop in my head about what makes for a good combat troop, I even did a statistical analysis of different kinds of front line troops (in a classic spear-wall) just to get a feel for which ones kill the fastest, are most resilient, etc.
Anyway, I then started building some sample armies to maximize the killing potential of Hunter Orcs, but no matter what, I always felt like the army was missing something. Even when I built it to statistically confirm that this army will beat down anything in its path in a straight up fight, it never felt safe.
This leads me to the key point of this post: brute force vs. shenanigans.
Brute force being the point-n-click way to kill things, either through elites or numbers or superior shooting. Shenanigans being the extra little tricks in the game, magic being a common one.
In my example, I was loading up purely on brute force. This gave me an army that would win its 1v1s, but had no way of beating tricky opponents other than rush-n-pound, and I like to be a bit more efficient than that. Okay, try to add some magic or monsters, now I have too few models. Striking the right balance between the two is proving to be a challenge.
The discussion I want to raise here is about that balance, if you're looking at your armies in terms of functionality (brute force) and flair (shenanigans), what do you like to have?
|